higgs production in the .9plus.9minus.910.95.9mssm: … · 2017. 6. 6. ·...

Higgs production in the MSSM:Transverse momentum resummation

Marius Wiesemann

University of Zürich

HP2 : High Precision for Hard Processes, Florence (Italy)

3-5 August, 2014

Outline

1. Transverse momentum resummation

2. SM vs. MSSM Higgs production

3. bb̄H: NNLO+NNLL distribution in the 5FS

4. Gluon fusion: NLO+NLL distribution in the MSSM

M. Wiesemann (University of Zürich) Higgs pT spectrum in the MSSM September 5, 2014 1 / 23

pT resummationI production of colorless particle (mass M)I problem: pT distribution diverges at pT → 0I reason: large logs ln p2

T/M2 for pT � M

αs : ln(p2T/M2), ln2(p2

T/M2)

α2s : ln(p2T/M2), ln2(p2

T/M2), ln3(p2T/M2), ln4(p2

T/M2)

· · ·


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

pT resummationI production of colorless particle (mass M)I problem: pT distribution diverges at pT → 0I reason: large logs ln p2

T/M2 for pT � M

αs : ln(p2T/M2), ln2(p2

T/M2)

α2s : ln(p2T/M2), ln2(p2

T/M2), ln3(p2T/M2), ln4(p2

T/M2)

· · ·I solution: all order resummation


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Transverse momentum resummationI developed already 30 years ago

[Parisi, Petronzio ’79], [Dokshitzer, Diakonov, Troian ’80], [Curci, Greco, Srivastava

’79], [Bassetto, Ciafaloni, Marchesini ’80], [Kodaira, Trentadue ’82], [Collins, Soper,

Sterman ’85]

dσ(res)Ndp2

T∼∫

db b2 J0(b pT ) S(b,A,B)HN fN fN , HN = HN CN CN

I we use newer formulation including various improvements:[Catani, de Florian, Grazzini ’01], [Bozzi, Catani, de Florian, Grazzini ’06]

I H embodies whole process dependenceI L = ln(Q2 b2/b2

0)→ L′ = ln(Q2 b2/b20 + 1)

→ reduction of impact at high pT (low b)→ unitarity constraint


MatchingI matched (resummed) cross section:[

dσdp2

T

]f.o.+l.a.

=

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��



dσdp2

T

]f.o.+l.a.

=

[dσ

dp2T

]f.o.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��



dσdp2

T

]f.o.+l.a.

=

[dσ

dp2T

]f.o.−[

dσ(res)

dp2T

]f.o.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��



dσdp2

T

]f.o.+l.a.

=

[dσ

dp2T

]f.o.−[

dσ(res)

dp2T

]f.o.

+

[dσ(res)

dp2T

]l.a.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


MatchingI unitarity (due to L→ L′):∫

dp2T

[dσ

dp2T

]f.o.+l.a.

≡[σ(tot)

]f.o..

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


ApplicationsI SM Higgs production through gluon fusion (heavy-top limit)

[Bozzi, Catani, de Florian, Grazzini ’06]

I Slepton pair production[Bozzi, Fuks, Klasen ’06]

I Vector boson pair production: WW and ZZ[Grazzini ’06], [Grazzini, Frederix ’08]

I Drell-Yan[Bozzi, Catani, Ferrera, de Florian, Grazzini ’10]

I SM Higgs production through gluon fusion with full massdependence[Mantler, MW ’12], [Grazzini, Sargsyan ’13]

I Recently: Higgs production through bottom annihilation[Harlander, Tripathi, MW ’14]

I new: MSSM Higgs production in gluon fusion[Harlander, Mantler, MW ’14]


SM vs. MSSM Higgs production

[TeV]s7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 210

[pb]

m

-210

-110

1

10

210

310

LHC

HIG

GS

XS W

G 2

014

H (NNLO+NNLL QCD + NLO EW)

App

H (NNLO QCD)

q qApp

WH (NNLO QCD)

App ZH (NNLO QCD)

App

H (NLO QCD)

t tApp HH (NLO QCD)

App

H (NNLO QCD - 5FS)

b bApp

= 125 GeVHMMSTW2008

I SM:I gluon fusion by far

dominantI bb̄H sizeable only with

b-tagging


SM vs. MSSM Higgs production

[TeV]s7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 210

[pb]

m

-210

-110

1

10

210

310

LHC

HIG

GS

XS W

G 2

014

H (NNLO+NNLL QCD + NLO EW)

App

H (NNLO QCD)

q qApp

WH (NNLO QCD)

App ZH (NNLO QCD)

App

H (NLO QCD)

t tApp HH (NLO QCD)

App

H (NNLO QCD - 5FS)

b bApp

= 125 GeVHMMSTW2008

I SM:I gluon fusion by far

dominantI bb̄H sizeable only with

b-tagging

I MSSM/2HDM:I 3 neutral Higgs: h, H and AI yb/yt enhanced by tanβI h: constrained to be SM-likeI bb̄H/A dominant for large tanβ


Associated H(bb̄) production4-flavour scheme

I exclusive up to NLO[Dittmaier, Krämer, Spira ’04]

[Dawson, Jackson, Reina, Wackeroth ’04]

5-flavour scheme


Associated H(bb̄) production4-flavour scheme

I exclusive up to NLO[Dittmaier, Krämer, Spira ’04]

[Dawson, Jackson, Reina, Wackeroth ’04]

5-flavour scheme

I inclusive up to NNLO[Harlander, Kilgore ’03]

I exclusive up to NNLO[Buehler, Herzog, Lazopoulos,

Mueller ’12]

I NLO+NLL pT resummation[Belyaev, Nadolsky, Yuan ’06]


bb̄H : Ingredients of the calculation[dσ

dp2T

]f.o.+l.a.

=

[dσ

dp2T

]f.o.

I analytic pT -distribution [Ozeren ’10]

I resummation coefficients from Drell-YanA(1), A(2), B(1) [Kodaira, Trentadue ’82],C (1) [Davies, Stirling ’84],A(3) [Becher, Neubert ’11],C (2) (H(2)) [Catani, Cieri, de Florian, Grazzini ’12]


αs : b b

α2s : b b b b


dp2T

]f.o.+l.a.

=

[dσ

dp2T

]f.o.−[

dσ(res)

dp2T

]f.o.





dp2T

]f.o.+l.a.

=

[dσ

dp2T

]f.o.−[

dσ(res)

dp2T

]f.o.



I Hbb̄H(1) = 3CFI new: [Harlander, Tripathi, MW ’14]

Hbb̄H(2) = 10.47± 0.08 (numerical result)

Hbb̄H(2) = CF

[ (32164 −

1348π

2)

CF +(−365

288 + π2

12

)Nf

+(5269576 −

512π

2 − 94ζ3)

CA

]


from universal form of H(2) [Catani, Cieri, de Florian, Grazzini ’13]

→ see Leandro’s talk

b

b


dp2T

]f.o.+l.a.

=

[dσ

dp2T

]f.o.−[

dσ(res)

dp2T

]f.o.



I Hbb̄H(1) = 3CFI new: [Harlander, Tripathi, MW ’14]

Hbb̄H(2) = 10.47± 0.08 (numerical result)

Hbb̄H(2) = CF

[ (32164 −

1348π

2)

CF +(−365

288 + π2

12

)Nf

+(5269576 −

512π

2 − 94ζ3)

CA

]= 10.52 . . .


from universal form of H(2) [Catani, Cieri, de Florian, Grazzini ’13]

→ see Leandro’s talk

b

b


dp2T

]f.o.+l.a.

=

[dσ

dp2T

]f.o.−[

dσ(res)

dp2T

]f.o.

+

[dσ(res)

dp2T

]l.a.



I + Hbb̄H(1) and Hbb̄H(2)

I third term: modified version of HqT


[Bozzi, Catani, de Florian, Grazzini ’03 ’05]

[de Florian, Ferrera, Grazzini, Tommasini ’11]

bb̄H : ChecksI analytic pT -distribution checked against numerical H + jet

calculation at NLO [Harlander, Ozeren, MW ’10]

I unitarity:∫ dσ

dpTdpT = total

I for various µF , µR valuesI integral Qres-independent

I fixed order (pT → 0) = logs (pT → 0)I for various µF , µR valuesI independent of Qres


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

bb̄H : ResultsNLO+NLL distribution:[Harlander, Tripathi, MW ’14], [Belyaev, Nadolsky, Yuan ’06][

dσdp2

T

]NLO+NLL

=

[dσ

dp2T

]NLO−[

dσ(res)dp2

T

]NLO

+

[dσ(res)dp2

T

]NLL

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


Q = mH/2 Q = mH/4

bb̄H : ResultsNLO+NLL distribution:[Harlander, Tripathi, MW ’14], [Belyaev, Nadolsky, Yuan ’06][

dσdp2

T

]NLO+NLL

=

[dσ

dp2T

]NLO−[

dσ(res)dp2

T

]NLO

+

[dσ(res)dp2

T

]NLL

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


higher order effect! [Banfi, Monni, Zanderighi ’13]

Q = mH/2 Q = mH/4

bb̄H : ResultsNNLO+NNLL distribution:[Harlander, Tripathi, MW ’14][

dσdp2

T

]NNLO+NNLL

=

[dσ

dp2T

]NNLO

−[

dσ(res)dp2

T

]NNLO

+

[dσ(res)dp2

T

]NNLL

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


Q = mH/4

bb̄H : ResultsScale uncertainties:[Harlander, Tripathi, MW ’14][

dσdp2

T

]NNLO+NNLL

=

[dσ

dp2T

]NNLO

−[

dσ(res)dp2

T

]NNLO

+

[dσ(res)dp2

T

]NNLL

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


Q-variation Q+µF+µR -variation

bb̄H : ResultsComparison to 5FS NLO+PS:[Frederix, Frixione, Maltoni, Torielli, MW]

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


Preliminary

analytic resum:µF = µR = mT/4

NLO+PS:µF = µR = HT/4


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


Preliminary




��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


Preliminary

→ Qshowersignificantly lowerthan Higgs mass(peak around 45 GeV, similar to µF )(default shower scalein MG5_aMCdistribution peaksaround 190 GeV)



Gluon fusion: Ingredients of the calculationI NNLO+NNLL in heavy-top limit [Bozzi, Catani, de Florian, Grazzini ’05]

I MSSM effects? → new: MoRe-SusHi (on sushi.hepforge.org)

dσ

dpT=

dσf.o.

dpT− dσlogs

dpT+

dσres

dpT

H




dσ

dpT=

dσf.o.

dpT− dσlogs

dpT+

dσres

dpT

H


Amplitudes from SusHi[Harlander, Liebler, Mantler ’12]



dσ

dpT=

dσf.o.

dpT− dσlogs

dpT+

dσres

dpT

H


σ(0)t+b

Amplitudes from SusHi[Harlander, Liebler, Mantler ’12]



dσ

dpT=

dσf.o.

dpT− dσlogs

dpT+

dσres

dpTH


, etc.

σ(0)t+b

φ φAmplitudes from SusHi[Harlander, Liebler, Mantler ’12]

Gluon Fusion: ResultsNLO+NLL ratio in the MSSM/SM (light Higgs):[Harlander, Mantler, MW ’14]

RS(pT ) = dσS/dpTdσSM/dpT

NS(pT ) = dσS/dpTdσSM/dpT

· σSMσS

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

RS(p

T)

pT [GeV]

pp @ 13 TeV

tauphobic(800,16)tauphobic(800,29.5)

mhmax(300,6.5)mhmodp(500,17)

mhmodm(500,16.5)lightstau(500,12)

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

RS(p

T)

pT [GeV]

pp @ 13 TeV

0.96

0.98

1

1.02

1.04

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

NS(p

T)

pT [GeV]

pp @ 13 TeV


mhmax(300,6.5)mhmodp(500,17)

mhmodm(500,16.5)lightstau(500,12)

0.96

0.98

1

1.02

1.04

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

NS(p

T)

pT [GeV]

pp @ 13 TeV


ratio to SM shape-ratio to SM

Benchmark Scenarios from [Carena, Heinemeyer, Stål, Wagner, Weiglein ’13]

light Higgs light Higgs

Gluon Fusion: Results

10-7

10-6

10-5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

dσ/d

p T [p

b/G

eV]

pT

tauphobic, mA = 800 GeV

tan(β) = 16tan(β) = 29.5

10-6

10-5

10-4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

dσ/d

p T [p

b/G

eV]

pT

tauphobic, mA = 800 GeV

tan(β) = 16tan(β) = 29.5

10-7

10-6

10-5

10-4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

dσ/d

p T [p

b/G

eV]

pT

mhmodm, mA = 800 GeV

tan(β) = 17tan(β) = 40

10-7

10-6

10-5

10-4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

dσ/d

p T [p

b/G

eV]

pT [GeV]

10-6

10-5

10-4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

dσ/d

p T [p

b/G

eV]

pT

mhmodm, mA = 800 GeV

tan(β) = 17tan(β) = 40

10-6

10-5

10-4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

dσ/d

p T [p

b/G

eV]

pT [GeV]


heavy Higgs pseudo-scalar


Gluon Fusion: ResultsNLO+NLL distribution in the MSSM (left: heavy, right: pseudo-scalar):[Harlander, Mantler, MW ’14]

NS(pT ) = dσS/dpTdσSM/dpT

· σSMσS

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

NS(p

T)

pT [GeV]

pp @ 13 TeV


mhmodp(800,17)mhmodp(800,40)

mhmodm(800,16.5)mhmodm(800,40)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

NS(p

T)

pT [GeV]

pp @ 13 TeV

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

NS(p

T)

pT [GeV]

pp @ 13 TeV


mhmodp(800,17)mhmodp(800,40)

mhmodm(800,16.5)mhmodm(800,40)

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

NS(p

T)

pT [GeV]

pp @ 13 TeV



Conclusions and OutlookConclusions:

I bb̄H and gluon fusion crucial in MSSM/2HDMbb̄H:

I missing hard coefficient at two-loop for H(bb̄) determinedI first calculation of NNLL pT -effects for H(bb̄) productionI strong reduction of resummation scale dependenceI consistent with NLO+PS resultsI remarkable agreement of 5FS NNLO+NNLL with 4FS NLO+PS

gluon fusion:I MoRe-SusHi: MSSM effects included in analytic resummationI h: quite SM-likeI H/A: significant shape/normalization distortion from b-loop

Outlook:I first NLO+PS in 4FSI complete differential comparison 4FS and 5FS for H(bb̄)I inclusion of bb̄H into MoRe-SusHi


BackUp


Resummation coefficients: determination of Hbb̄H,(2)b

I hard-collinear function:

Hbb̄H(2)

bb̄←bb̄(z) = Hbb̄H(2)b δ(1− z) + known

I use unitarity:

[σ̂(tot)bb̄

]f.o.

=

∫dp2

T

[

dσbb̄dp2

T

]f.o.−

dσ(res)bb̄dp2

T

f.o.

+

∫dp2

T

dσ(res)bb̄dp2

T

l.a.︸︷︷︸

=z σ̂(0)

bb̄ Hbb̄H(2)

bb̄←bb̄

→ numerical result: Hbb̄H,(2)b = 10.47± 0.08


[Catani, Cieri, de Florian,

Ferrera, Grazzini ’12]

Resummation coefficients: determination of Hbb̄H,(2)b

→ numerical result: Hbb̄H,(2)b = 10.47± 0.08

I recently: universal Form of H(2) determined[Catani, Cieri, de Florian, Grazzini ’13]

→ for both gg- and qq̄-initiated processes→ process dependence: finite part of virtuals

I anlytical result from two-loop virtuals:[Harlander, Tripathi, MW ’14]

Hbb̄H,(2)b = CF

[(32164 −

1348π

2)

CF +

(−365288 +

π2

12

)Nf

+

(5269576 −

512π

2 − 94ζ3

)CA

]= 10.52 . . .


ResultsPDF+αs uncertainties:[Harlander, Tripathi, MW ’14]

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

bb̄H : ResultsQ = mH/2 vs. Q = mH/4:[Harlander, Tripathi, MW ’14][

dσdp2

T

]NNLO+NNLL

=

[dσ

dp2T

]NNLO

−[

dσ(res)dp2

T

]NNLO

+

[dσ(res)dp2

T

]NNLL

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


pT resummationI determination of resummation coefficients:

I expand resummation formula in αsI compare to small pT region of fixed order cross sectionI Q0 � M:

αs :

∫ Q20

0

[dσ(res)

dp2T

]NLO

dp2T

!=

∫ Q20

0

[dσ

dp2T

]NLO

dp2T

f (A(1),B(1),C (1),H(1)) = K2 ln2(Q20/M2) + K1 ln(Q2

0/M2) + K0

+O(Q20/M2)

I known for Drell-Yan and gg → H up to NNLL[Kodaira, Trentadue ’82], [Davies, Stirling ’84], [Catani, D’Emilio, Trentadue ’88],

[de Florian, Grazzini ’01], [Becher, Neubert ’11], [Catani, Grazzini ’11], [Catani,

Cieri, de Florian, Ferrera, Grazzini ’12]


Gluon fusion: Choosing the resummation scaleI Qb ≡ Qtb = mb in SM suggested due to appearance of terms

[Grazzini, Sargsyan ’13]

∼ ln(mb/pT )

I vanish as pT → 0⇒ no factorization breaking, no Sudakov logsI directly related to ln(mb/mH) in total rateI HOWEVER: could spoil collinear/soft approximation⇒ Sudakov resummation would be unsufficient

I BUT: if small, treated as all other finite terms (powercorrections in pT )

I choosing Qb (and Qtb) – 2 proposals:1. analyze size of finite terms

[Banfi, Monni, Zanderighi ’13]2. consider validity of collinear/soft approximation

[Bagnaschi, Vicini]


When quark masses are taken into account, new non-factorizing logarithmic terms pop up in the regime

soft limit (squared amplitude)

collinear limit (squared amplitude)

These new terms vanish for , so that the standard factorization of soft and collinear singularities is preserved as

Exact treatment of quark masses

e.g. including top and bottom quarks at relative order

⇠ (mb/mH)4 ln4(m2b/p2

t )

⇠ (mbmt)2/m4

H ln2(m2b/p2

t ) ln2(m2t /p2

t )

non-factorizing terms completely cancel in the top-bottom interference

O(↵s)

interference terms survive and give a dominant contribution

pt ! 0

Masses and soft factorisationTop and bottom loops have also a different behaviour with respect to factorisation of soft emissions in the region

pt ⌧ mH ⌧ mt mb ⌧ pt ⌧ mH

H

W+

W�

W+

W�

H

pt

pt

pt,veto = 25 � 30 GeV

Top loop: Bottom loop:

Soft gluons cannot resolve the top loop factorisation OK)

Soft gluons can resolve a bottom loop factorisation breaking?)

mbmt

m2b << p2

t << m2H

mb, mt

pt mb

No factorization breaking ! Just a larger remainder...

Gluon fusion: Choosing the resummation scaleI bad high pT matching for large QI due to unitarity: cross section will even become negativeI pragmatic way to determine Q: [Harlander, Mantler, MW ’14]

require that cross section remains positive for Q = 2Q0

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

100 150 200 250 300 350 400

(dσ

res /

dpT)

/ (dσ

fo/d

p T)

pT [GeV]

Qres = 94 GeVQres = 96 GeVQres = 98 GeV

Qres = 100 GeVQres = 102 GeV

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

100 150 200 250 300

(d�r

es/d

p T) /

(d�f

o /dp

T)

pT [GeV]

Qres = 42 GeVQres = 44 GeVQres = 46 GeVQres = 48 GeVQres = 50 GeV

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

100 150 200 250 300 350

(d�r

es/d

p T) /

(d�f

o /dp

T)

pT [GeV]


high pT matching → Qt = 49GeV, Qb = 23GeV, Qtb = 34GeV

finite terms (for pvetoT ) → Qt ∼ 60GeV, Qb ≡ Qtb ∼ 35GeV

soft/collinear approx (10%) → Qt ∼ 55GeV, Qb ∼ 25GeV


top bottom interference

Gluon fusion: Choosing the resummation scaleI bad high pT matching for large QI due to unitarity: cross section will even become negativeI pragmatic way to determine Q: [Harlander, Mantler, MW ’14]

require that cross section remains positive for Q = 2Q0

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

100 150 200 250 300 350 400

(dσ

res /

dpT)

/ (dσ

fo/d

p T)

pT [GeV]

Qres = 94 GeVQres = 96 GeVQres = 98 GeV

Qres = 100 GeVQres = 102 GeV

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

100 150 200 250 300

(d�r

es/d

p T) /

(d�f

o /dp

T)

pT [GeV]


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

100 150 200 250 300 350

(d�r

es/d

p T) /

(d�f

o /dp

T)

pT [GeV]


high pT matching → Qt = 49GeV, Qb = 23GeV, Qtb = 34GeVfinite terms (for pveto

T ) → Qt ∼ 60GeV, Qb ≡ Qtb ∼ 35GeVsoft/collinear approx (10%) → Qt ∼ 55GeV, Qb ∼ 25GeVM. Wiesemann (University of Zürich) Higgs pT spectrum in the MSSM September 5, 2014 8 / 11

top bottom interference

1. size of finite termsI considered for pjet

T ,veto efficiencies[Banfi, Monni, Zanderighi ’13]

finite terms ≤ 50% → Qt ∼ 60GeV, Qb ≡ Qtb ∼ 35GeV


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1 10 100

ε rem

aind

er(p

t,vet

o)/ε

rem

aind

er(p

t,vet

o=∞

)

pt,veto [GeV]

mH = 125 GeV

mt = 173.5 GeV; mb = 4.65 GeV

| t |2

| b |2+2 Re[b*⋅ t]| t+b |2

2. validity of collinear approximationI at matrixelement level for pT Higgs→more in Alessandro’s talk

[Bagnaschi, Vicini]

max 10% deviation → Qt ∼ 55GeV, Qb ∼ 25GeV


Alessandro Vicini - University of Milano CERN, December 16th 2013

Collinear approximation of the full amplitude summed over helicities

50 100 150 200 250 300ptH HGeVL

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

C

50 100 150 200 250 300ptH HGeVL

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

C

50 100 150 200 250 300ptH HGeVL

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

C

|M(m)|2 =X

�1,�2,�3=±1

|M�1,�2,�3(m)|2 =X

�1,�2,�3=±1

|M�1,�2,�3

div (m)/pH? + M�1,�2,�3

reg (m)|2

C(pH? ) =

|Mexact(pH? )|2

|Mdiv(pH? )/pH

? |2

sum over helicities of the amplitudes evaluated with:

only top, only bottom, top+bottom

Alessandro Vicini - University of Milano CERN, December 16th 2013

Collinear approximation of the full amplitude summed over helicities

50 100 150 200 250 300ptH HGeVL

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

C

50 100 150 200 250 300ptH HGeVL

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

C

50 100 150 200 250 300ptH HGeVL

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

C

|M(m)|2 =X

�1,�2,�3=±1

|M�1,�2,�3(m)|2 =X

�1,�2,�3=±1

|M�1,�2,�3

div (m)/pH? + M�1,�2,�3

reg (m)|2

C(pH? ) =

|Mexact(pH? )|2

|Mdiv(pH? )/pH

? |2

sum over helicities of the amplitudes evaluated with:

only top, only bottom, top+bottom

t-only b-only

Gluon Fusion: ResultsNLO+NLL distribution in the SM:[Harlander, Mantler, MW ’14][

dσdp2

T

]NLO+NLL

=

[dσ

dp2T

]NLO−[

dσ(res)dp2

T

]NLO

+

[dσ(res)dp2

T

]NLL

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

dσ/d

p T [p

b/G

eV]

pT [GeV]

SM, mH = 125.6 GeV, pp @ 13 TeV

SMf.o.

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

(dσ

x /dp

T) /

(dσ

htl /d

p T)

pT [GeV]

pp @ 13 TeV

b+tt


higgs production in the .9plus.9minus.910.95.9mssm: … · 2017. 6. 6. ·...

Documents